Lee Elliott wrote
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 21:50, Vivian Meazza wrote: [snip...] ...
I'd be inclined to hold off including the Sea Hawk, TSR-2
and B-52,
for the time being at least. The Sea Hawk is currently getting a
proper panel,
speed-brakes and some missing gear doors,
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be
tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight.
1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming
On 3/16/04 at 9:50 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be
tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight.
1. I'm growing less enthused with our
On 3/17/04 at 11:22 AM David Luff wrote:
Then, one could type --aircraft=C172 --2d to try and get a 2d cockpit if
available (would fall back to default if not), and likewise
--aircraft=C172
--3d (ditto for fallback), and a lot of names would become superfluous.
Just to be clear, I'm proposing
On 3/17/04 at 10:29 AM Erik Hofman wrote:
The following aircraft didn't make it due to the following reason:
737 : There are already too many US aircraft. The A320 fills that gap.
I strongly disagree. I think that both the 737 and A320 should go in. The
737 is a good showcase for how far
David Luff wrote:
On 3/17/04 at 10:29 AM Erik Hofman wrote:
The following aircraft didn't make it due to the following reason:
737 : There are already too many US aircraft. The A320 fills that gap.
I strongly disagree. I think that both the 737 and A320 should go in. The
737 is a good
In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be
tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight.
I think now is a good time to bother everyone with the hangar idea again.
If we have
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 07:16, Martin Spott wrote:
Hello Curt,
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
next release.
I think it would be tremendously helpful to coordinate the with the
next PLib release. There have been sooo many
Curtis L. Olson said:
What is the status of the helicopters? They've seemed very crude when
I've looked at them. I don't mean to be anti-helicopter, but if we are
trying to cull some of the less nice stuff out of the official release,
I'm not sure in their current form they would make
Martin Spott said:
Hello Curt,
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
next release.
I think it would be tremendously helpful to coordinate the with the
next PLib release. There have been sooo many changes to PLib that
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 03:50, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming system. I
don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes annoying to have
8 names for the same aircraft, even 2 names for the same aircraft. What
would people say to
I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
--show-aircraft list.
How will the situation be handled where several FDMs model the same
aircraft - that day is coming if it is not here already.
Jon
On 17 Mar 2004 at 7:17, Jon Berndt wrote:
I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
--show-aircraft list.
How will the situation be handled where several FDMs model the same
aircraft - that day is coming if it is not
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 13:17, Jon Berndt wrote:
I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
--show-aircraft list.
How will the situation be handled where several FDMs model the same
aircraft - that day is coming if it
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when starting flightgear with a different FDM model for the c172 it
would look like this:
./fgfs --aircraft=c172 --fdm=yasim
or
./fgfs --aircraft=c172 --fdm=jsbsim
or
./fgfs --aircraft=c172 --fdm=LaRCsim
I want to add like D.
And what about this: remove description tag from alias set files which
shouldn't be displayed in --show-aircrafts and show only those with non empty
description. Fill description only in c172-set.xml,j3cub-set.xml etc.
It is simplistic solution and all syntax can stay same.
Regards,
MaDr
--
To: FlightGear developers discussions
Subject: RE: [Flightgear-devel] RFD: base package aircraft and aliases
I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
--show-aircraft list.
How will the situation be handled where several FDMs
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming system. I
don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes annoying to have
8 names for the same aircraft, even 2 names for the same aircraft. What
would people say to nuking all the alias entries for
Martin Dressler wrote:
And what about this: remove description tag from alias set files which
shouldn't be displayed in --show-aircrafts and show only those with non empty
description. Fill description only in c172-set.xml,j3cub-set.xml etc.
It is simplistic solution and all syntax can stay
David Luff wrote:
I agree with the fact that there is a problem with the multiple names, but
not with your proposed solution. Please don't ditch the aliases. Or to be
more specific, please don't ditch the short names. Typing --aircraft=737
is so much better than --aircraft=737-jsbsim, and
Jon Berndt said:
I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
--show-aircraft list.
How will the situation be handled where several FDMs model the same
aircraft - that day is coming if it is not here already.
For command
kreuzritter2000 said:
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 14:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So when starting flightgear with a different FDM model for the c172 it
would look like this:
./fgfs --aircraft=c172 --fdm=yasim
or
./fgfs --aircraft=c172 --fdm=jsbsim
or
./fgfs --aircraft=c172
David Megginson said:
I wouldn't go that far. I'd call the Cub beta, since it's missing some
basic panel instruments.
AFAIK it has all the original instrumentation, just no modern updates.
Best,
Jim
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:05:03 -0500
David Megginson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a matter of fact, I'd suggest getting rid of the yasim,
jsbsim, etc. in aircraft names altogether. We have only a tiny
handful of aircraft (172, 310, etc.) supported by more than one FDM;
in those cases, let's just
Jim Wilson wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. I'd call the Cub beta, since it's missing some
basic panel instruments.
AFAIK it has all the original instrumentation, just no modern updates.
It's missing the inclinometer at the bottom of the panel -- I had thought
that it was also missing the oil
David Megginson wrote:
Aside from the inclinometer, the panel needs only the primer and carb
heat knobs, which aren't major. After that, we need the throttle and
fuel cutoff on the right side, and that's about it.
right side wasn't a typo -- I was thinking of the perspective of the pilot
David Luff wrote:
On 3/16/04 at 9:50 PM Curtis L. Olson wrote:
In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be
tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight.
1. I'm growing less
Josh Babcock wrote:
Are we going to keep the old functionality laying around so all the
power hungry cui jockeys can do this:
Sorry, that's cli.
___
Flightgear-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming system. I
don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes annoying to
have 8 names for the same aircraft, even 2 names for the same aircraft.
As I understand it, aliases are primarily a convenience for
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Based on the discussion of this thread, here is the current list I have
assembled for inclusion, notice that I err on the side of inclusion
rather than exclusion which I think is fine, especially if we unclutter
the fgrun aircraft browser.
That's a pretty impressive
That's a pretty impressive list. For presentation purposes, though,
you might want to
refer to the PA-28-161 as the Piper Warrior II or the Piper
Cherokee Warrior II (the
official name varies by year).
I'll leave that to the aircraft designer. :-) They can put whatever
label they want
Curtis L. Olson writes:
2. We have a *lot* of aircraft in the base package.
I suggest we limit the base package to 2 or 3 aircraft at most
IMHO better if this is only 1 aircraft though and have a supplemental
aircraft package(s) for the rest
Note I am concerned about the size of the
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Based on the discussion of this thread, here is the current list I have
assembled for inclusion, [...]
I think this is a choice that makes easy,
Martin.
--
Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 13:17, Jon Berndt wrote:
I completly agree with that, please keep the aliases
and remove extenion names like jsbsim, 2d/3d etc. in the
--show-aircraft list.
How will the situation be handled where several FDMs model the same
aircraft - that day is coming if it
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 03:50, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
next release. There are probably many things that could stand to be
tweaked and polished but two related items jump out at me tonight.
1. I'm growing less enthused
Actually, the base cvs package on dial-up isn't too bad once you've done the
initial checkout, and even then it can be done over several sessions.
LeeE
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 07:15, Durk Talsma wrote:
I agree that trimming down the base package (for the release) is probably
a good idea.
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 16:37, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias naming system. I
don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes annoying to
have 8 names for the same aircraft, even 2 names for the same aircraft.
Lee Elliott wrote
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 16:37, Curtis L. Olson wrote:
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
1. I'm growing less enthused with our aircraft alias
naming system.
I don't mind that we have the capability, but it becomes
annoying to
have 8 names for the same aircraft, even
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 21:50, Vivian Meazza wrote:
[snip...]
...
I'd be inclined to hold off including the Sea Hawk, TSR-2 and
B-52, for the
time being at least. The Sea Hawk is currently getting a
proper panel,
speed-brakes and some missing gear doors, courtesy of Vivian
M. The
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 17:15, Norman Vine wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
2. We have a *lot* of aircraft in the base package.
I suggest we limit the base package to 2 or 3 aircraft at most
IMHO better if this is only 1 aircraft though and have a supplemental
aircraft package(s) for the
Hi Guys
Al West writes
On Wednesday 17 March 2004 17:15, Norman Vine wrote:
Curtis L. Olson writes:
2. We have a *lot* of aircraft in the base package.
I suggest we limit the base package to 2 or 3 aircraft at most
IMHO better if this is only 1 aircraft though and have a supplemental
I agree that trimming down the base package (for the release) is probably a
good idea. I'm beginning to wonder if the base package isn't starting to
overshoot it's target these days. What I mean to say with this is that a few
years ago we had a pretty big discussion about whether or not to
Hello Curt,
Curtis L. Olson wrote:
In the next couple weeks I'd like to start moving seriously towards our
next release.
I think it would be tremendously helpful to coordinate the with the
next PLib release. There have been sooo many changes to PLib that
FlightGear should _not_ base on the
43 matches
Mail list logo
